Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.429, 0.173

0.406

time_point

1st

2nd

0.011

0.133

-0.250, 0.272

0.934

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.212

0.192

-0.163, 0.588

0.269

Pseudo R square

0.004

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.268

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.380

-0.824, 0.664

0.833

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.183

0.242

-0.657, 0.291

0.450

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

0.349

0.333, 1.70

0.004

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.502

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.711

-1.06, 1.73

0.637

time_point

1st

2nd

0.709

0.393

-0.062, 1.48

0.073

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

0.568

-0.099, 2.13

0.076

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.183

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.259

-0.476, 0.540

0.902

time_point

1st

2nd

0.017

0.171

-0.318, 0.353

0.919

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.307

0.247

-0.176, 0.791

0.214

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.289

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.409

-0.458, 1.15

0.401

time_point

1st

2nd

0.436

0.252

-0.057, 0.929

0.085

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.392

0.363

-0.319, 1.10

0.281

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.544, 0.912

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.377

0.204

-0.023, 0.778

0.066

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.291

0.295

-0.288, 0.869

0.326

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.215

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.304

-0.987, 0.203

0.198

time_point

1st

2nd

0.065

0.208

-0.343, 0.472

0.756

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.760

0.299

0.173, 1.35

0.012

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.882

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.247

-3.73, 1.16

0.303

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.30

0.626

-2.53, -0.073

0.039

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.264

0.904

-2.04, 1.51

0.770

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.408

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.578

-1.14, 1.12

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.415

0.336

-0.243, 1.07

0.218

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.156

0.485

-0.794, 1.11

0.747

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.514

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.727

-0.585, 2.26

0.249

time_point

1st

2nd

0.510

0.408

-0.289, 1.31

0.212

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.217

0.588

-0.936, 1.37

0.712

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.642

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.908

-0.411, 3.15

0.133

time_point

1st

2nd

1.18

0.481

0.237, 2.12

0.015

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.145

0.694

-1.22, 1.51

0.835

Pseudo R square

0.017

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.337

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.476

-0.581, 1.28

0.460

time_point

1st

2nd

0.435

0.255

-0.064, 0.934

0.089

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.030

0.368

-0.750, 0.691

0.936

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.543

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.767

-1.50, 1.50

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.714

0.418

-0.105, 1.53

0.089

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.457

0.603

-0.724, 1.64

0.449

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.630

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.891

-1.43, 2.07

0.720

time_point

1st

2nd

1.10

0.467

0.187, 2.02

0.019

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.140

0.674

-1.46, 1.18

0.836

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.388

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.549

-0.317, 1.84

0.167

time_point

1st

2nd

0.718

0.338

0.055, 1.38

0.035

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.416

0.488

-0.540, 1.37

0.394

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.353

0.052, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.048

0.200

-0.440, 0.345

0.812

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.389

0.289

-0.177, 0.956

0.180

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.285

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.403

-0.399, 1.18

0.332

time_point

1st

2nd

0.348

0.226

-0.094, 0.791

0.124

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.290

0.326

-0.349, 0.928

0.375

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.415

-0.118, 1.51

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.337

0.214

-0.084, 0.757

0.118

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.183

0.310

-0.424, 0.790

0.555

Pseudo R square

0.018

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.539

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.762

-0.406, 2.58

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.681

0.376

-0.057, 1.42

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.491

0.544

-0.574, 1.56

0.367

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.820

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.159

-3.49, 1.06

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.740

0.601

-1.92, 0.437

0.219

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.28

0.867

-2.98, 0.422

0.142

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.444

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.629

-0.224, 2.24

0.110

time_point

1st

2nd

0.260

0.332

-0.390, 0.909

0.435

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.638

0.479

-0.300, 1.58

0.184

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.361

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.510

0.008, 2.01

0.049

time_point

1st

2nd

0.538

0.290

-0.031, 1.11

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.276

0.419

-0.545, 1.10

0.511

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.767

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.084

-0.109, 4.14

0.064

time_point

1st

2nd

0.794

0.565

-0.312, 1.90

0.161

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.926

0.815

-0.671, 2.52

0.257

Pseudo R square

0.025

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.142

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.201

-0.466, 0.322

0.721

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.137

0.156

-0.443, 0.168

0.379

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.177

0.224

-0.262, 0.617

0.430

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.308

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.436

-0.135, 1.57

0.100

time_point

1st

2nd

0.662

0.303

0.069, 1.26

0.030

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.742

0.436

-1.60, 0.113

0.090

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.377

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.533

-0.581, 1.51

0.385

time_point

1st

2nd

0.585

0.324

-0.049, 1.22

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.214

0.467

-0.701, 1.13

0.647

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.617

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.872

-0.525, 2.89

0.175

time_point

1st

2nd

1.25

0.542

0.186, 2.31

0.022

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.509

0.781

-2.04, 1.02

0.515

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.403

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.571

-0.590, 1.65

0.355

time_point

1st

2nd

0.771

0.323

0.139, 1.40

0.018

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.103

0.465

-0.810, 1.01

0.826

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.223

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.315

-0.626, 0.610

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.202

0.229

-0.247, 0.652

0.378

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.454

0.330

-0.193, 1.10

0.171

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.275

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.389

-0.850, 0.674

0.821

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.412

0.266

-0.934, 0.110

0.123

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.447

0.384

-1.20, 0.305

0.245

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.460

-0.677, 1.13

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.317

0.246

-0.799, 0.164

0.198

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.614

0.355

-1.31, 0.082

0.085

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.472

-1.00, 0.844

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.459

0.253

-0.955, 0.036

0.071

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.299

0.365

-1.01, 0.416

0.414

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.474

-0.520, 1.34

0.390

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.247

0.251

-0.739, 0.245

0.326

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.673

0.362

-1.38, 0.037

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.937

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.325

-2.05, 3.15

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.03

0.634

-2.28, 0.210

0.105

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.53

0.916

-3.33, 0.261

0.095

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(447) = 29.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(447) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27], t(447) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 9.06e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.59], t(447) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(447) = 66.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(447) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.29], t(447) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.33, 1.70], t(447) = 2.92, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.11, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(447) = 59.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(447) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.48], t(447) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.13], t(447) = 1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(447) = 63.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(447) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.35], t(447) = 0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = 8.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.79], t(447) = 1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(447) = 59.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(447) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.93], t(447) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.10], t(447) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(447) = 50.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(447) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.78], t(447) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.96e-03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.87], t(447) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(447) = 46.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(447) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47], t(447) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.17, 1.35], t(447) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.07, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(447) = 35.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.16], t(447) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.53, -0.07], t(447) = -2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -7.46e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.51], t(447) = -0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(447) = 54.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(447) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.07], t(447) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.11], t(447) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(447) = 47.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(447) = 1.16, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.31], t(447) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.37], t(447) = 0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(447) = 30.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(447) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.24, 2.12], t(447) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.51], t(447) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(447) = 31.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(447) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.93], t(447) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.69], t(447) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -7.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(447) = 27.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.68e-15, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(447) = 1.00e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.83e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.53], t(447) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.64], t(447) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(447) = 34.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(447) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [0.19, 2.02], t(447) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.18], t(447) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(447) = 41.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(447) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.06, 1.38], t(447) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.37], t(447) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(447) = 52.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(447) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.34], t(447) = -0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.96], t(447) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(447) = 58.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(447) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.79], t(447) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.93], t(447) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(447) = 42.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(447) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.76], t(447) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.79], t(447) = 0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(447) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(447) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.42], t(447) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-9.50e-03, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.56], t(447) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(447) = 34.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(447) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.92, 0.44], t(447) = -1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-2.98, 0.42], t(447) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(447) = 31.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(447) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.91], t(447) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.58], t(447) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.03], t(447) = 42.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [8.15e-03, 2.01], t(447) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.01e-03, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.11], t(447) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.58e-03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.10], t(447) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.67, 30.67], t(447) = 38.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(447) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.90], t(447) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.52], t(447) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(447) = 90.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(447) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17], t(447) = -0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.62], t(447) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(447) = 46.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(447) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.07, 1.26], t(447) = 2.19, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.11], t(447) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(447) = 34.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(447) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.22], t(447) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.13], t(447) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(447) = 44.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.89], t(447) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [0.19, 2.31], t(447) = 2.30, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.02], t(447) = -0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(447) = 46.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(447) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.14, 1.40], t(447) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.01], t(447) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(447) = 64.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(447) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.65], t(447) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.10], t(447) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(447) = 42.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(447) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.11], t(447) = -1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.30], t(447) = -1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(447) = 31.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.13], t(447) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.16], t(447) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.08], t(447) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(447) = 30.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(447) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.04], t(447) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, 9.71e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.42], t(447) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(447) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(447) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.25], t(447) = -0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.04], t(447) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 9.89e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(447) = 31.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.05, 3.15], t(447) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.28, 0.21], t(447) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.26], t(447) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,443.907

1,456.255

-718.954

1,437.907

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,447.165

1,471.861

-717.583

1,435.165

2.742

3

0.433

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,185.264

2,197.612

-1,089.632

2,179.264

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,179.156

2,203.852

-1,083.578

2,167.156

12.108

3

0.007

ras_confidence

null

3

2,714.986

2,727.334

-1,354.493

2,708.986

ras_confidence

random

6

2,699.700

2,724.395

-1,343.850

2,687.700

21.286

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,842.953

1,855.301

-918.477

1,836.953

ras_willingness

random

6

1,845.157

1,869.852

-916.578

1,833.157

3.796

3

0.284

ras_goal

null

3

2,244.329

2,256.677

-1,119.165

2,238.329

ras_goal

random

6

2,235.992

2,260.688

-1,111.996

2,223.992

14.337

3

0.002

ras_reliance

null

3

2,117.653

2,130.000

-1,055.826

2,111.653

ras_reliance

random

6

2,110.019

2,134.714

-1,049.010

2,098.019

13.634

3

0.003

ras_domination

null

3

2,008.595

2,020.943

-1,001.297

2,002.595

ras_domination

random

6

2,000.071

2,024.767

-994.036

1,988.071

14.524

3

0.002

symptom

null

3

3,179.712

3,192.060

-1,586.856

3,173.712

symptom

random

6

3,174.482

3,199.178

-1,581.241

3,162.482

11.230

3

0.011

slof_work

null

3

2,527.358

2,539.706

-1,260.679

2,521.358

slof_work

random

6

2,529.147

2,553.843

-1,258.574

2,517.147

4.211

3

0.240

slof_relationship

null

3

2,725.008

2,737.356

-1,359.504

2,719.008

slof_relationship

random

6

2,724.754

2,749.449

-1,356.377

2,712.754

6.254

3

0.100

satisfaction

null

3

2,915.262

2,927.610

-1,454.631

2,909.262

satisfaction

random

6

2,905.963

2,930.659

-1,446.982

2,893.963

15.299

3

0.002

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,324.425

2,336.773

-1,159.213

2,318.425

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,324.693

2,349.389

-1,156.347

2,312.693

5.732

3

0.125

mhc_social

null

3

2,767.444

2,779.792

-1,380.722

2,761.444

mhc_social

random

6

2,763.451

2,788.146

-1,375.725

2,751.451

9.994

3

0.019

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,888.785

2,901.132

-1,441.392

2,882.785

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,885.416

2,910.112

-1,436.708

2,873.416

9.368

3

0.025

resilisnce

null

3

2,514.693

2,527.041

-1,254.346

2,508.693

resilisnce

random

6

2,502.937

2,527.632

-1,245.469

2,490.937

17.756

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

2,078.405

2,090.753

-1,036.203

2,072.405

social_provision

random

6

2,074.307

2,099.002

-1,031.153

2,062.307

10.099

3

0.018

els_value_living

null

3

2,195.737

2,208.084

-1,094.868

2,189.737

els_value_living

random

6

2,190.425

2,215.120

-1,089.212

2,178.425

11.312

3

0.010

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,193.866

2,206.214

-1,093.933

2,187.866

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,188.370

2,213.065

-1,088.185

2,176.370

11.496

3

0.009

els

null

3

2,731.443

2,743.791

-1,362.722

2,725.443

els

random

6

2,722.496

2,747.191

-1,355.248

2,710.496

14.947

3

0.002

social_connect

null

3

3,127.669

3,140.017

-1,560.835

3,121.669

social_connect

random

6

3,119.533

3,144.229

-1,553.767

3,107.533

14.136

3

0.003

shs_agency

null

3

2,577.104

2,589.451

-1,285.552

2,571.104

shs_agency

random

6

2,571.399

2,596.094

-1,279.700

2,559.399

11.705

3

0.008

shs_pathway

null

3

2,418.614

2,430.962

-1,206.307

2,412.614

shs_pathway

random

6

2,408.833

2,433.528

-1,198.416

2,396.833

15.781

3

0.001

shs

null

3

3,070.345

3,082.693

-1,532.173

3,064.345

shs

random

6

3,060.764

3,085.460

-1,524.382

3,048.764

15.581

3

0.001

esteem

null

3

1,657.978

1,670.325

-825.989

1,651.978

esteem

random

6

1,663.132

1,687.828

-825.566

1,651.132

0.845

3

0.839

mlq_search

null

3

2,332.307

2,344.654

-1,163.153

2,326.307

mlq_search

random

6

2,332.444

2,357.140

-1,160.222

2,320.444

5.862

3

0.119

mlq_presence

null

3

2,475.165

2,487.513

-1,234.583

2,469.165

mlq_presence

random

6

2,471.237

2,495.932

-1,229.618

2,459.237

9.928

3

0.019

mlq

null

3

2,926.937

2,939.285

-1,460.469

2,920.937

mlq

random

6

2,924.621

2,949.316

-1,456.310

2,912.621

8.317

3

0.040

empower

null

3

2,515.367

2,527.715

-1,254.684

2,509.367

empower

random

6

2,508.090

2,532.785

-1,248.045

2,496.090

13.277

3

0.004

ismi_resistance

null

3

2,054.869

2,067.217

-1,024.435

2,048.869

ismi_resistance

random

6

2,052.190

2,076.885

-1,020.095

2,040.190

8.679

3

0.034

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,230.906

2,243.254

-1,112.453

2,224.906

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,224.514

2,249.210

-1,106.257

2,212.514

12.392

3

0.006

sss_affective

null

3

2,301.437

2,313.784

-1,147.718

2,295.437

sss_affective

random

6

2,292.787

2,317.482

-1,140.393

2,280.787

14.650

3

0.002

sss_behavior

null

3

2,322.367

2,334.714

-1,158.183

2,316.367

sss_behavior

random

6

2,316.726

2,341.421

-1,152.363

2,304.726

11.641

3

0.009

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,323.930

2,336.278

-1,158.965

2,317.930

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,316.668

2,341.363

-1,152.334

2,304.668

13.262

3

0.004

sss

null

3

3,223.329

3,235.677

-1,608.664

3,217.329

sss

random

6

3,212.009

3,236.704

-1,600.005

3,200.009

17.320

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.406

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

106

3.21 ± 1.21

-0.011

97

3.30 ± 1.20

-0.224

0.618

-0.085

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.00

125

17.80 ± 3.00

0.833

0.045

recovery_stage_b

2nd

106

17.70 ± 2.90

0.102

97

18.63 ± 2.86

-0.467

0.021

-0.525

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.62

125

30.02 ± 5.62

0.637

-0.116

ras_confidence

2nd

106

30.40 ± 5.38

-0.245

97

31.75 ± 5.27

-0.595

0.072

-0.466

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.05

125

11.66 ± 2.05

0.902

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

106

11.64 ± 1.99

-0.014

97

11.98 ± 1.96

-0.257

0.222

-0.268

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.24

125

17.53 ± 3.24

0.401

-0.185

ras_goal

2nd

106

17.62 ± 3.12

-0.235

97

18.36 ± 3.07

-0.446

0.091

-0.397

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.122

ras_reliance

2nd

106

13.52 ± 2.81

-0.251

97

14.00 ± 2.75

-0.444

0.226

-0.316

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.198

0.255

ras_domination

2nd

106

10.02 ± 2.34

-0.042

97

10.38 ± 2.31

-0.536

0.260

-0.239

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.86

125

30.21 ± 9.86

0.303

0.280

symptom

2nd

106

30.20 ± 9.39

0.283

97

28.64 ± 9.16

0.340

0.234

0.338

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.57

125

22.06 ± 4.57

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

106

22.48 ± 4.39

-0.168

97

22.63 ± 4.31

-0.231

0.808

-0.060

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.75

125

25.34 ± 5.75

0.249

-0.280

slof_relationship

2nd

106

25.01 ± 5.51

-0.170

97

26.07 ± 5.40

-0.242

0.168

-0.352

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.17

125

21.03 ± 7.17

0.133

-0.387

satisfaction

2nd

106

20.84 ± 6.86

-0.334

97

22.36 ± 6.70

-0.375

0.113

-0.428

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.76

125

11.00 ± 3.76

0.460

-0.188

mhc_emotional

2nd

106

11.08 ± 3.60

-0.232

97

11.41 ± 3.52

-0.216

0.519

-0.172

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.07

125

15.13 ± 6.07

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

106

15.84 ± 5.81

-0.232

97

16.30 ± 5.68

-0.381

0.571

-0.149

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.05

125

21.87 ± 7.05

0.720

-0.093

mhc_psychological

2nd

106

22.65 ± 6.73

-0.321

97

22.83 ± 6.57

-0.281

0.847

-0.052

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.34

125

16.94 ± 4.34

0.167

-0.305

resilisnce

2nd

106

16.89 ± 4.19

-0.288

97

18.07 ± 4.12

-0.455

0.045

-0.472

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.79

125

13.91 ± 2.79

0.036

-0.505

social_provision

2nd

106

13.12 ± 2.68

0.032

97

14.25 ± 2.62

-0.232

0.003

-0.769

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.332

-0.236

els_value_living

2nd

106

17.11 ± 3.06

-0.210

97

17.79 ± 2.99

-0.384

0.110

-0.411

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.28

125

13.10 ± 3.28

0.095

-0.442

els_life_fulfill

2nd

106

12.74 ± 3.13

-0.214

97

13.62 ± 3.06

-0.330

0.044

-0.558

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.03

125

30.26 ± 6.03

0.155

-0.394

els

2nd

106

29.85 ± 5.74

-0.246

97

31.43 ± 5.59

-0.424

0.048

-0.572

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.16

125

26.66 ± 9.16

0.295

0.276

social_connect

2nd

106

27.14 ± 8.75

0.168

97

24.65 ± 8.54

0.457

0.041

0.565

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 4.97

125

14.85 ± 4.97

0.110

-0.414

shs_agency

2nd

106

14.10 ± 4.75

-0.107

97

15.75 ± 4.64

-0.369

0.013

-0.676

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.03

125

16.34 ± 4.03

0.049

-0.472

shs_pathway

2nd

106

15.87 ± 3.87

-0.252

97

17.15 ± 3.79

-0.381

0.018

-0.601

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.57

125

31.18 ± 8.57

0.064

-0.486

shs

2nd

106

29.96 ± 8.18

-0.192

97

32.90 ± 7.99

-0.415

0.010

-0.709

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.59

125

12.73 ± 1.59

0.721

0.062

esteem

2nd

106

12.66 ± 1.56

0.119

97

12.77 ± 1.55

-0.035

0.630

-0.091

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.45

125

15.08 ± 3.45

0.100

-0.322

mlq_search

2nd

106

15.02 ± 3.36

-0.296

97

15.00 ± 3.32

0.035

0.963

0.010

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.22

125

13.62 ± 4.22

0.385

-0.194

mlq_presence

2nd

106

13.74 ± 4.07

-0.245

97

14.42 ± 3.99

-0.335

0.232

-0.284

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.89

125

28.70 ± 6.89

0.175

-0.296

mlq

2nd

106

28.76 ± 6.66

-0.312

97

29.43 ± 6.55

-0.185

0.468

-0.169

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.51

125

19.38 ± 4.51

0.355

-0.222

empower

2nd

106

19.62 ± 4.33

-0.325

97

20.25 ± 4.24

-0.368

0.295

-0.266

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.49

125

14.35 ± 2.49

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

106

14.56 ± 2.44

-0.119

97

15.01 ± 2.41

-0.386

0.191

-0.262

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.08

125

11.70 ± 3.08

0.821

0.045

ismi_discrimation

2nd

106

11.38 ± 2.99

0.209

97

10.84 ± 2.95

0.436

0.201

0.272

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.124

sss_affective

2nd

106

10.08 ± 3.48

0.176

97

9.69 ± 3.40

0.515

0.420

0.216

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.73

125

10.10 ± 3.73

0.865

0.043

sss_behavior

2nd

106

9.72 ± 3.56

0.247

97

9.34 ± 3.48

0.408

0.445

0.204

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.390

-0.221

sss_cognitive

2nd

106

8.47 ± 3.58

0.134

97

8.20 ± 3.50

0.499

0.594

0.144

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.48

125

29.84 ± 10.48

0.677

-0.119

sss

2nd

106

28.25 ± 9.95

0.222

97

27.27 ± 9.69

0.552

0.477

0.211

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(409.85) = -0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(433.38) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.42)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(330.51) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(376.60) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st

t(308.08) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.73)

2st

t(350.69) = 1.80, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.82)

ras_willingness

1st

t(337.77) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(383.83) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.88)

ras_goal

1st

t(324.11) = 0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(369.78) = 1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.59)

ras_reliance

1st

t(307.28) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(349.66) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.24)

ras_domination

1st

t(345.21) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(390.72) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.01)

symptom

1st

t(296.29) = -1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.17)

2st

t(334.63) = -1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.11 to 1.01)

slof_work

1st

t(315.11) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)

2st

t(359.43) = 0.24, p = 0.808, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.35)

slof_relationship

1st

t(309.87) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(352.98) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.56)

satisfaction

1st

t(302.52) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)

2st

t(343.34) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.38)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(303.73) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(344.97) = 0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.30)

mhc_social

1st

t(305.88) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(347.82) = 0.57, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.04)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(301.13) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(341.43) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.02)

resilisnce

1st

t(324.34) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(370.04) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.32)

social_provision

1st

t(311.57) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(355.11) = 3.04, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.87)

els_value_living

1st

t(309.56) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(352.59) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.52)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(299.42) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(339.07) = 2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.73)

els

1st

t(294.56) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(332.11) = 1.99, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.14)

social_connect

1st

t(299.78) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)

2st

t(339.57) = -2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.11)

shs_agency

1st

t(301.91) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.24)

2st

t(342.51) = 2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.94)

shs_pathway

1st

t(311.83) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(355.43) = 2.38, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.34)

shs

1st

t(300.36) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(340.38) = 2.59, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.71 to 5.18)

esteem

1st

t(376.35) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(414.61) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.54)

mlq_search

1st

t(348.22) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(393.36) = -0.05, p = 0.963, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.90)

mlq_presence

1st

t(321.97) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(367.41) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.79)

mlq

1st

t(326.03) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(371.87) = 0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.50)

empower

1st

t(310.97) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)

2st

t(354.36) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.81)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(359.64) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(402.70) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(345.19) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(390.70) = -1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(303.52) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(344.70) = -0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(303.89) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(345.19) = -0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.59)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(302.46) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(343.25) = -0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.71)

sss

1st

t(291.48) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.16)

2st

t(327.53) = -0.71, p = 0.477, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.70 to 1.73)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(230.52) = 1.62, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(216.94) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(212.99) = 4.21, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.92 to 2.53)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(218.19) = 1.83, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.68)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(215.84) = 3.17, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.34)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(212.85) = 3.14, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.09)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(219.45) = 3.82, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.25)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(210.83) = -2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.85 to -0.28)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(214.25) = 1.63, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.26)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(213.32) = 1.71, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.56)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(211.98) = 2.65, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.31)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(212.20) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.93)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(212.59) = 2.69, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.03)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(211.72) = 1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.92)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(215.88) = 3.23, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.44 to 1.83)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(213.62) = 1.64, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(213.26) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(211.41) = 2.33, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(210.50) = 2.99, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.95)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(211.48) = -3.23, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-3.25 to -0.78)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(211.87) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.58)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(213.67) = 2.69, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.41)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(211.58) = 2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.56 to 2.88)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(224.67) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(219.96) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.54)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(215.46) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(216.17) = 1.31, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.85)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(213.51) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.54)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(221.87) = 2.76, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(219.45) = -3.11, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.40 to -0.31)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(212.16) = -3.64, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.44 to -0.43)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(212.23) = -2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.28 to -0.24)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(211.97) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.44 to -0.40)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(209.92) = -3.88, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.87 to -1.26)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(221.83) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.27)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(211.98) = -0.76, p = 0.901, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.29)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(209.22) = 1.80, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.48)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(212.85) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.36)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(211.20) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(209.12) = 1.84, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.78)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(213.74) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(207.72) = -2.08, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.54 to -0.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(210.09) = 1.23, p = 0.437, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.08)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(209.44) = 1.25, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.31)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(208.51) = 2.45, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.13)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(208.67) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(208.94) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.54)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(208.34) = 2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.18 to 2.02)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(211.23) = 2.12, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.39)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(209.65) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.35)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(209.40) = 1.54, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.79)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(208.12) = 1.57, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.76)

els

1st vs 2st

t(207.49) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.42)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(208.17) = -1.23, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.44)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(208.44) = 0.78, p = 0.870, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.91)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(209.69) = 1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.11)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(208.24) = 1.41, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.91)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(217.49) = -0.88, p = 0.759, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(214.10) = 2.19, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.26)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(210.94) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.22)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(211.43) = 2.30, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.18 to 2.32)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(209.58) = 2.39, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.41)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(215.47) = 0.88, p = 0.757, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(213.74) = -1.55, p = 0.246, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.11)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(208.64) = -1.29, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.17)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(208.69) = -1.82, p = 0.142, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.04)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(208.51) = -0.98, p = 0.653, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.25)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(207.09) = -1.63, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.28 to 0.22)

Plot

Clinical significance